Phil English

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to a great leader on energy policy who is recognized on both sides of the aisle in this Chamber, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green). (Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller) a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, now it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to a truly distinguished expert on energy policy that serves on the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I'd yield myself 30 seconds to simply point out to the gentleman from North Dakota, who I know is an authentic and sincere advocate of the wind energy credit, that in this bill there is a cap on the wind energy credit which will have the effect of undermining the benefits for many wind energy credit participants. And this is extremely important. By putting a cap on this credit, it will have the effect of discouraging many from participating in the wind energy credit, and for a district like mine that produces windmill technology, this is a real cause for concern. And with that, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), who has been a strong advocate on energy policy.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side?

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I wonder if I might invite the gentleman from New York to perhaps proceed.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, with the indulgence of the other side, I would like to reserve our time.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I will just yield myself 1 minute to set the record straight. The underlying legislation is not going to, as the last speaker suggested, reduce the dependency of the U.S. on foreign oil. In fact, every analyst who has looked at this suggests it will increase the dependency on foreign oil. It certainly in the short run, courtesy of its $17 billion in tax increases on energy production, will increase prices. And that's because the tax increases that are in here are not taxes on profits. We've heard a lot about oil company profits, but in fact what we are taxing here under their bill is any investment in enhanced production. In other words, any time an oil company takes their profits and invests it in new production and doing what we would expect them to do, we're going to hit them over the head. And this should be a cause for concern because we've heard some rhetoric about how energy costs have gone up, but since they took the majority, gas prices have gone up 30 percent. And under the spot market, a barrel of oil has gone from $55 to $100 a barrel. That is not a favorable trend.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds simply to note that the Senate has already passed legislation which, unfortunately, has not been brought up by the other side. I attempted to offer that version as an amendment to this legislation, and I'm afraid the Rules Committee did not make it in order. If we really wanted to move something to the President's desk that would work, the majority had the opportunity to do that and has been quick to fritter it away. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 4 minutes to a gentleman who has been a true leader on energy policy in this Chamber through many sessions, who will be retiring at the end of this session, but today I think we have an opportunity to hear him on energy one more time, the ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I was very impressed by the last speech, and I wish I could be as charitable about the underlying product or about the effort that we are making on the floor today. I do want to congratulate the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee for having given our Select Revenue Subcommittee the opportunity to explore through hearings what our tax policy should be at energy and policy, and I am hopeful that the day will come when those hearings will yield the results that we would hope. I am afraid today is not likely to be that day. The crisis we are facing is a real one. Mr. Speaker, we are facing a rising global demand for energy of all sorts as the economies of China and India grow. We are seeing the phenomenon of peak oil playing out. Clearly, we are not going to see the growing reserves that we have enjoyed in the past, and increasingly many of the remaining reserves are being mediated by state-owned oil companies with ideological or nationalistic agendas. Our consumers, both our individual consumers and our corporate consumers, are facing the consequences of high prices, and yet we are imposing on our production artificial restrictions on new production. That is the wrong policy at a time like this. And we are facing aging energy infrastructure, whether it is a power grid that frankly is facing brownouts or refineries that are now at 92 percent of capacity. So if any one of them breaks down, we face a shortage in energy. These are real problems. And coupled with them is the legitimate concern about externalities, the fact that greenhouse gases from the consumption of fossil fuels are having an uncertain impact on our climate. And yet in the context of all of that, H.R. 5351 is simply not the answer, Mr. Speaker. It wasn't in any of its three previous incarnations, and it is not now. It is bad energy policy. And it is bad tax policy. There are parts of it that represent a continuity with the policies of past Congresses, and I salute the other side for including the extenders. But just like a car with an empty gas tank, this legislation is a nonstarter. It is not going to go anywhere in the Senate. It is not going to get on the President's desk. And today I would ask all of those who join me with these concerns to join in voting against this wrongheaded bill. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, when the Democrats took control of this body, prices at the pump were about 30 percent lower. The price on the spot market for a barrel of oil was $55, not $100 the way it was last week. They promised to address the energy crisis that has plagued the economic stability of this country and seek lower prices at the pump for American consumers. Unfortunately, the bill that stands before us today fails to accomplish this goal and fails to meet the needs of the American people. By taking away the very tax incentives that helped promote oil and gas exploration here at home, this bill diminishes domestic companies' opportunity and incentive to produce gasoline. This in turn will raise energy costs for cash-strapped consumers. While the majority party has come to believe that handing out new tax credits and new bonding authority to Governors and mayors is a coherent energy policy, there are many of us in this Chamber who are a little skeptical on that point. These dulcet-sounding bond programs lack effective safeguards to ensure that the money from the newly created liberal slush fund would go toward environmentally sound projects that will promote or improve energy independence in America. This Rube Goldberg device can't be seriously expected to help the average American cope with today's high energy prices. What's more, these things certainly do nothing to help consumers cope with tomorrow's higher energy prices that the tax increases incorporated into this bill will certainly generate. This legislation will not help Americans who carpool to work and will not help working moms driving their children to school. It will not bring down home heating costs for families struggling to make ends meet during this winter season, and it will not lower the cost of fertilizer for farmers. Mr. Speaker, our motion to recommit will help ease the burden of economic hardship for many of these working families. This motion will strike all of the tax increases from the bill at the time when the economy needs more innovative solutions rather than simply stacking tax increase upon tax increase with no help for working families. It will strike the massive haircut that this bill gives to the most effective renewable energy policy in this code, the wind credit. The bill risks undermining the success of the wind credit, which has been the most promising source of alternative energy. This motion to recommit restores it to its full value. This motion also rids the underlying bill of the egregiously wasteful bond program that, in our view, is nothing more than a waste of taxpayer dollars with no real potential oversight. We also eliminate something that I know is dear to some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, and that is the tax incentive for people who ride their bikes to work, and I am sure I will hear about this from my paperboy. This motion represents a much more rational approach for moving American energy policy forward. As we all know, the pro-growth tax policies enacted by Republican Congresses have been a source of fertility in the American economy, helping tens of millions of taxpayers; and for that matter, millions who don't pay taxes but receive refundable tax credits from the IRS every year. While Washington Democrats have continued to demonize tax cuts for only helping the rich, the facts speak for themselves. This motion to recommit preserves two critical pro-growth policies and prevents tax increases for many working Americans. First, it would prevent the current $1,000 child tax credit from being slashed in half in 2011 through Democrat inaction. Second, it would prevent a substantial increase in the marriage tax penalty which is set to occur in 2011. According to the Treasury Department, allowing these tax incentives to sunset will force more than 6 million additional taxpayers to become subject to the individual income tax, and 116 million families will have an average tax increase of more than $1,800. Sunsetting the $1,000 child tax credit and keeping the marriage tax penalty on the books will, without a doubt, subject millions of families to being hit with serious tax increases. What does the majority's inaction on these tax reforms mean? It means higher taxes on low-income families with children and higher taxes on married couples. What does passing the energy bill in front of us mean? It means higher energy prices across the board and greater dependence on foreign oil. What does passing the motion to recommit mean? It means preventing tax increases. Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of the motion to recommit and against this badly flawed underlying bill. Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, today I also rise in support of this legislation. Congress must not stand by while the financing of our Nation's airways are to lapse. The cost to our Nation's economy of doing so would be devastating. As you know, authorizing legislation permitting the collection of aviation taxes and fees sadly expired at the end of the last fiscal year. Congress since then has extended that authorization through the end of this month in the consolidated appropriations act. It is unfortunate, in my view, that Congress was not able to reach an agreement with the other body on a longer term solution before resorting to temporary extensions. I feel that the Ways and Means Committee and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee worked well together to put together a workable bill that would continue financing our system with modest changes for a period of 4 years. Four years would have given us enough time to allow this body to devote the necessary time to make a close examination of the financing of the system and consider the long-term changes that technology and the demands of that system are imposing on us, something that I believe the Committee on Ways and Means and the Select Revenue Subcommittee did not have time to accomplish, despite multiple hearings on this issue. While today's bill will only extend current law authority through the end of June, this is a necessary step in the process. It certainly does not speak well of this Congress that we are not able to do these things promptly with discipline and do so in a timely fashion, but I believe that our committee, Ways and Means, together with the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, have provided value added, and I would like to believe that given some additional time, that we would have had an opportunity to put forward a permanent solution. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to a senior member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri).

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think we have made the case here, Mr. Speaker, that it is important that this legislation go forward to cure an inability of Congress to bring closure on this very, very important issue. This is stop-gap legislation that is necessary to allow America's aviation system to remain airborne, and at a critical time. It is essential that we pass this bill in order to ensure that thousands of FAA employees are not furloughed through congressional inaction. It is also vitally important for communities engaged in an airport construction project, communities like my hometown of Erie, Pennsylvania, that the bill before us reinstates the contract authority for the FAA to issue money under the Airport Improvement Program. I believe that this is an opportunity for us to get this right in the coming months. It is essential that the House Ways and Means Committee, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and the bipartisan leadership of this body engage the Senate in order to pass a permanent solution that provides long-term funding for the FAA in a manner that is consistent with the fundamental changes in that system in order to provide the necessary investment in this essential piece of our national transportation infrastructure. I urge my colleagues to vote for the bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, tonight the House has an opportunity to give American working families and employers the shot in the arm they need to weather this growing economic storm. The heart of this bipartisan plan focuses on putting more demand into a flagging economy, more money back into the hands of America's hardworking middle-class families. Through tax rebates and a bump in the child tax credit, this agreement will quickly inject a cash infusion into the economy to assist families with skyrocketing food, services, and energy costs. Importantly, this legislation will go a step further than the original compact and ensure that veterans and seniors receive additional financial support to boost their buying power. All of that is positive. And as we've already heard, the housing provisions to increase limits on loans backed on by the FHA and GSEs will, without a doubt, give relief to families facing financial pressure from the subprime mortgage crisis. Finally, and importantly, by rewarding businesses for making critical capital investments here onshore, we will expand investment, create new jobs, improve the competitiveness of the American economy, and put an immediate infusion of liquidity into the economy. Madam Speaker, in my view, this is precisely the right tonic at the right time. This should be a start, not the last word. We should be moving forward with regulatory reform and, above all, let me note to the people on the other side of the aisle, a budget this year without a large tax increase looming in the future. But short of that, this is a good starting place. And I urge my colleagues to vote for working families, vote for jobs, and vote, above all, for a growing economy.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize and honor Dr. David Dennis Dunn for his dedication to his country, exemplary service during World War II and contributions to the medical field and the Erie, Pennsylvania community. This honorable citizen will soon celebrate his 95th birthday on February 6, 2008. WW II is filled with stories of heroism, selflessness, patriotism and a relentless desire to secure a future for the United States of America and the international community. Brave men left their ordinary lives in order to serve a cause greater than themselves. Dr. Dunn was among those great men to make that sacrifice. Contributing his medical skills to that noble cause, Dr. Dunn served more than four years in the U.S. Army Medical Corps, including overseas duty in Iceland, England, Ireland, France, Germany, Luxembourg and Austria. He attained the rank of Captain serving in the 5th Medical Battalion, 5th Infantry Division and later served in the 30th Field Hospital. Dr. Dunn was awarded five Battlestars and the Bronze Star among a variety of other medals of commendations for his service. Dr. Dunn pursued a 50 year career in General Surgery, starting as an instructor at the University of Pennsylvania Medical School, completing a residency in surgery at the Lankenau Hospital in Philadelphia and practicing general surgery at Hamot Hospital in Erie. He reached the pinnacle of his remarkable medical career when he was ultimately appointed Chief of Surgery at Hamot and later became a traveling guest lecturer at the highly esteemed Harvard University. Not only has Dr. Dunn contributed to society professionally, but he also has had a great impact through his volunteer efforts in the Erie community of Pennsylvania's 3rd district. He is a member of the Sons of the American Revolution and has served on the boards of multiple community organizations, notably as Founder and Board member of Hospice of Metropolitan Erie. He also was actively involved in Meals for Wheels, the Erie Community Foundation and the Erie Cemetery Association. I am often reminded that America has been blessed with great people and leaders; Americans who rose to the challenge when their country was in need. I take great pride in representing a district with such honorable men in history. I hope my colleagues will join me in honoring Dr. Dunn for his admirable service to our country. His lifetime of achievements in the medical field and the community is certainly deserving of recognition, celebration and a great deal of gratitude.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman. Over the last couple of months I have watched with growing trepidation as the economic news turned worse and increasingly in the market there were uncertainties about the large tax increases being threatened from the other side of the aisle, and generally a sense of pessimism about the economy. I came to the conclusion we needed to consider moving forward with a stimulus package. Today, Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say our Chamber has an opportunity to find common ground and rally, despite our ideological differences, behind a short-term stimulus package that will have limited utility but will provide the ailing American economy with the right incentives at exactly the right time. Through bipartisan dialogue and agreement, we have been able to settle on a plan that will benefit both wage earners and job creators, encourage investment, and put more money back in the pockets of America's hardworking middle-class families. As a result of this plan, working Americans will have access to extra cash to cushion increased costs in food and energy; families, in fear of losing their homes, will have new opportunity to refinance their mortgages and retain homeownership; and businesses will be rewarded for making capital investments here in the domestic economy, which, in turn, will jump- start spending and create more good-paying jobs. This compromise was negotiated as a simple, clean, and targeted bill. It is the best that we can do that we can pass quickly and accomplish our goal of stimulating the economy in the near term. I urge my colleagues to join me to vote for jobs, to vote for American workers, and to vote for economic growth.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, the current subprime housing crisis, coupled with volatile energy prices, rising costs in health care and looming tax increases, among others, have put our country on the dark path of economic slowdown. And although not yet a technical recession, it certainly feels like a recession in the communities that I represent in western Pennsylvania. Clearly, America's hardworking families and employers are feeling the crunch from the slowing economy. While there's a growing consensus in Washington that Congress needs to take action on a stimulus package to stave off further economic challenges, an agreement on how to proceed remains very elusive. In addition to recently participating in a Joint Economic Committee hearing on the state of the economy, I've met with half a dozen respected economists, and I strongly believe that unless Congress acts swiftly on a stimulus package that will inject money into the American economy and incentivize job creation, middle class America will be forced to bear the brunt of our country's economic instability. To be clear, now is not the time for politics as usual. We need to unite to enact sound stimulus legislation that, among other things, will benefit both wage earners and job creators, will encourage investment in good paying jobs, and will put more money back into the pockets of working families. Now, how can Congress achieve these goals on a bipartisan basis? In my view, Madam Speaker, the single best way to help struggling employers in this climate, while providing a jumpstart to the economy, is to allow companies to quickly recapture the money they invest in capital. Congress should step up to the plate today to create incentives for American employers to invest in new equipment, to revive bonus depreciation to boost employer's capital, and to work to enact common- sense policies that will curb the reach of the corporate alternative minimum tax at exactly the time when its reach is most devastating, during economic downturns. At the same time, Congress must explore ways in which we can mitigate the impact of a sluggish economy on low and moderate income families that are now facing new and severe economic uncertainty. By extending unemployment benefits, rolling the income tax on unemployment benefits back, and increasing the child tax credit and providing a significant tax rebate for middle-class families, Congress can ensure that every American has access to the financial resources they need to weather this pending economic storm. While I've outlined a stimulus plan that will create an environment for job growth, reform how we tax American employers and improve UC benefits for the long-term unemployed, Congress must be vigilant in crafting a pro-growth plan that will not disturb the government's fiscal balance. I believe frankly we need to avoid absurd PAYGO rhetoric which, coupled with a liberal budget requiring tax increases, now seems to be hobbling action on the other side of the aisle. Over the past year, some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have insisted on a budget that would impose substantial tax increases on a struggling American economy. These Herbert Hoover Democrats have used the labels of tax reform and revenue neutrality as a carnival mask to conceal a policy of higher taxes and higher spending, essentially placing a higher percentage of the American economy under government control, and this at a time when the economy is vulnerable, facing slower economic growth. Instead of setting new priorities, the new majority has chosen to throw priority setting to the wind and have undermined the benefits of the very tax policies that have grown the economy and helped America's middle class. At the time of economic hardship, when Americans are struggling to make ends meet, it would be inconceivable to place additional, unnecessary tax burdens on the backs of middle class America. Madam Speaker, time is of the essence. Putting the economy back on a growth path must be a top priority for Washington. Congress must move on a bipartisan basis to enact a stimulus package that is swift, significant and effective. We need to set aside sterile politics of class warfare and embrace strong pro-growth tax policies that will help benefit everyone by reinvigorating the American economy.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, today I rise to recognize the accomplishments of the Fredonia American Legion Auxiliary. The members of this organization have loyally served the Fredonia area and its veteran community for many years and their good deeds deserve to be acknowledged. All of the Legion's activities work toward its mission to improve the quality of life for Fredonia's veterans and their families. To raise money for veteran family events, such as their annual Children's Christmas Party, the Legion has held various events throughout the year including a Chinese auction, craft show, bingo night and several basket raffles. As part of their community service efforts, members collected donations to give to local needy families during the holiday season. The Legion hosted an ``Americanism'' Essay Contest at local grade schools to promote patriotism among the country's youth. The winners included third-grader Olivea Wright from Oakview Elementary and sixth- grader Kelsey Greathouse from Commodore Perry Elementary. On Veterans Day and Memorial Day, members held honorary services with special guest speakers to pay tribute to U.S. veterans in the Fredonia area. From September 2006 to June 2007, the Fredonia American Legion donated an impressive $18,700 in coupons to 37 commissaries around the world. The officers of the Legion include: Mary Ellen Flynn, President; Sandy Lurtz, 1st Vice President; Ruth Foust, 2nd Vice President; Dorthy Young, Secretary/Treasurer; Shirley Kirsch, Chaplain; Darlene Hoffman, Historian and Sergeant-at-Arms; Mary Jane Lockcock, Sergeant-at-Arms. I hope my colleagues will join me at this time in recognizing the service of the Fredonia American Legion and in congratulating its efforts.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Thank goodness they are not going to have to wait a generation for a Democratic President. This bill, Madam Speaker, is a good resolution to a political impasse and a good solution to the hindering cuts that impede our Nation's physicians and would impact on the health care of our young people and our seniors. It makes a substantial adjustment for physicians who participate in the Medicare program, albeit only temporary. Although I would have liked to have seen a more permanent and comprehensive solution to a range of Medicare issues, we just couldn't wait and allow 10 percent cuts in payments to physicians to occur. I hope to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle on a more permanent solution in the upcoming year to this particularly thorny issue. The legislation before us also endorses important issues that I have fought hard to be involved with and to make progress on, including extending the exceptions process for therapy caps and a revision of the policy structure for long-term care hospitals. Those are legacy issues that we are going to have to take up sooner rather than later. I am glad we have a final resolution temporarily on SCHIP. Thank you. I urge a vote for the bill.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Madam Speaker, I'll keep my remarks brief and submit the bulk of my remarks for the Record where they contain economic analysis and no theology, so they may be out of place in this floor debate. It's been fascinating to listen to the lecture that we've heard about failure. The failure that is on display here is the failure of this majority to fix the AMT as they promised or even to patch it in a timely fashion. We are voting today on a bill that we should have voted on 4 to 6 months ago and easily could have, and the blame here, if there is to be any blame, is on the other side for having passed a budget that was built on quicksand, that was balanced based on revenues from applying the AMT to 23 million mainly middle-class families. And every one of them that voted for it voted to do it. They took PAYGO and they made a burlesque of it. What they have been doing up until this point is trying frantically to hold the AMT crisis that they created as a hostage in order to drive higher taxes. They've been using the AMT issue as a locomotive for a tax increase that is unnecessary and is inappropriate, particularly if, as the majority leader feels, the economy might be slowing down. They have been single-minded in their approach to try to drive higher taxes. Today, we have an opportunity to protect the taxpayers without a tax increase. Let's take it. Madam Speaker, since coming to Congress, I have been a vocal champion for repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax. The AMT is a horribly inefficient parallel tax system that was never intended to impact those it is, or soon will ensnare. This Congress, like so many before it, I have introduced legislation to repeal the AMT. In recent years, Congress has turned to enacting temporary relief--or a patch--to keep the AMT from reaching more and more taxpayers in the middle class. This is necessary because the AMT was never indexed for inflation. This fact, in conjunction with the Democrats' distortion of pay-as- you-go budgeting has placed us in the situation we face today. While I think it is fair to say that most people believe the AMT was a mistake and it should be addressed, the debate is over how it should be addressed and if, in fact, other taxpayers should pay more taxes in order to keep the AMT at bay. In other words, does it make sense for the rule of the House to require Congress to find revenue through real tax increases in order to stop a tax increase from happening? The Democratic majority says yes. I say that this premise is utterly absurd. Only in Washington could some green-eye-shade type conjure up the idea that it is necessary to raise taxes on one group of Americans in order to prevent another group of Americans from paying more taxes. Instead of focusing our energy on who should pay more taxes, as this majority has done, Congress should be focused on what kind of pro- growth, pro-innovation and pro-job tax policies to enact. Sadly, Madam Speaker, this majority has failed in this regard, even at a time the economy is beginning to show signs of softening. Even on the more narrow issue of ensuring 21 million new taxpayers aren't subject to the AMT next year, the majority has barely received a passing grade. This is the latest in the year Congress has dealt with an AMT patch-- ever. Well, in this instance, tardiness as a severe consequence. The Internal Revenue Service has said that the delay in enacting an AMT patch this year will result in massive confusion for taxpayers and lengthy delays for those expecting refunds this year. And perhaps most disappointing of all is that when you dig deeper, the misguided banner of paygo which the majority holds up today is nothing more than a feeble attempt to mask their true intention with the AMT all along: to hold 23 million taxpayers hostage as they implement a protracted effort to permanently raise taxes in exchange for temporary tax relief. They may say today that they are issuing an ``IOU'' to taxpayers that they intend to ``pay for'' this bill to prevent a tax increase. But, no American is fooled by these reindeer games. They know that all that means is that the House Democrats have just made a reservation to come to your house and raise your taxes. I'm particularly pleased Republicans were able to call the majority out on this folly today in the name of the American taxpayer and economy. But, we must also insist that the majority's reservation is never honored.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I would like to thank the distinguished Member from Washington. Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I have to rise in strong opposition to this rule. I wouldn't normally speak out against a rule, but I think these are unique circumstances and they're highlighted by the comments of one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who accused Republicans of holding hostages. That's really an extraordinary statement under the circumstances. After all, it was House Democrats who conspired to preserve the AMT in 1999. It's House Democrats who had talked broadly about repealing the AMT this year. It is House Democrats that passed a budget that used the revenue from applying the AMT to 23 million mostly middle-class taxpayers. And it is, after all, House Democrats who have come forward today with a placebo that doesn't do what they originally said that they were going to do. I have offered before the Rules Committee and in the Ways and Means Committee an amendment that would have directly addressed the Democrats' promise. Yesterday, an amendment was offered in the Committee on Rules and dismissed out of hand that, by defeating today's rule, may yet be preserved to fulfill the promise of the Democrats to get rid of the AMT. My amendment would have sunset the AMT by a date certain. It would have fully repealed the individual alternative minimum tax. And any vote against this rule, Mr. Speaker, is a vote against an opportunity to ultimately and permanently eliminate the AMT. The amendment is very simple. The AMT would be repealed and never seen again after 2018. That's far enough in the future that we should be able to plan around it. As Congress continues to wrestle with the ridiculous notion of how to pay for eliminating a tax that we never intended, this amendment allows us to set a firm horizon on which the AMT will be eliminated and require that our budgets no longer be built on the quicksand of AMT revenue. And the amendment is fully PAYGO compliant, so there's no reason not to have allowed this amendment to be debated if the majority is, in fact, serious about ensuring that the AMT is eliminated. Unfortunately, the bottom line is that the majority, in fact, believes that they need the revenue, and they want to continue to do things like they do in today's bill, which is pass permanent tax increases in order to fund temporary tax relief. If the majority, in fact, believes that it will find a way to repeal the AMT before 2018, then this amendment should be allowable. Nothing in this amendment would prevent the Congress from taking up a plan to get rid of the AMT sooner than 2018. What this amendment does do, though, is let the taxpayer know that the AMT will be history. As I said, we missed the chance to do that in 1999 because of the position that the other side took. And this amendment would have given Members of this body an up-or-down vote on whether or not to support the repeal of the AMT. Perhaps this is a true indication of the majority's intent to take this tax monster, harness it, and put it to work to allow with PAYGO rules that every year we churn the Tax Code to raise taxes ever higher. I think the AMT has got to go and that's why I'm offering this amendment if allowed. I urge the defeat of the rule.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I thank the gentleman. As chairman of the Zero AMT Caucus, I rise to strongly oppose this wrongheaded measure, which instead of offering a prescription for tax relief or tax reform, which they promised at the beginning of the year, it is a placebo that imposes a permanent tax increase in exchange for the false promise of temporary tax relief. This legislation, as the other side has said, is all about hostages and brinkmanship. Their budget was built on the quicksand of AMT revenues that assumed the revenue from taxing 23 million people under the AMT. Now we have to raise taxes to protect them. They are using this crisis as a locomotive to drive higher taxes. But those aren't the only hostages, Mr. Speaker. Other taxpayers are being held hostage to delay. Already, this is the longest Congress has gone into the year without dealing with the AMT's reach ever. The IRS and Treasury have indicated that this delay will, at best, cause massive chaos and confusion in the upcoming filing season, but at worst, it is the likely scenario, since this bill was put forward dead on arrival with the Senate and the House, 50 million taxpayers could find their refunds delayed by many weeks. But that isn't the only hostage. The extenders are being held hostage. Everyone who utilizes the extender deductions on State and local taxes, the tuition deduction, expenses for school teachers, combat pay under the EITC, mortgage bonds for veterans, companies that use the R&D tax credit or certain charitable contributions, these extenders are going to be delayed if it is tied to this dead-on-arrival bill. Mr. Speaker, this bill does nothing to deal with what they said was their top priority, which is reforming or getting rid of the AMT. It's bad tax policy. It's a large tax increase no matter how they dress it up. And it's a tax increase coming at a time of economic slowdown. Just say ``no.''

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I have been listening this evening to the presentations of the last two speakers and I am struck by how, with powerful presentations, I think with a logic which is difficult to challenge, and with oration rhetoric they have laid out the challenge facing American workers with a tax bill, with a tax initiative coming from the majority that is going to raise taxes on working families, driven by a budget by the majority that took revenues from applying the AMT to 23 million taxpayers and now is requiring the majority to look willy-nilly for ways of bridging that tax gap, we now come to the mother of all tax hikes, which has been rolled out in our committee, presented as a tax reform, but ultimately I think is an albatross that would be a dead drag on the American economy. There are so many problems with the majority's mother of all tax hikes that, frankly, Mr. Speaker, I sincerely doubt that one hour would allow us to do justice to all of them. So tonight I'd like to focus my remarks on how working families in districts like mine are, as a result of the bill, potentially going to be facing one whopping marriage penalty, see a reduction on the value of deductions for things like mortgage interest and State and local taxes. In addition, if they have got kids, they better be prepared to hang on to their wallet because it's going to take the revenue from dropping the child tax credit to $500 from $1,000, and raising the 10 percent bracket to 15 percent. I'd also like to talk about how this bill will make America less competitive and cost America jobs, particularly in the manufacturing sector. Now, Mr. Speaker, beginning in 2001, the Republican majority at the time took steps to neutralize the marriage penalty. We were successful in reducing this unfair penalty on marriage and families in the Tax Code. Yet, in the mother of all tax hikes bill, the Democrat majority is proposing to resuscitate the marriage penalty and bring it roaring back to life. The MATH bill sets income thresholds for a newly designed surtax. But instead of setting the income threshold for married couples at twice the level of income as the threshold for single filers, the majority creates a gargantuan marriage penalty. In fact, the threshold for married couples is only 33 percent higher than the one established for single filers. This creates a 66 percent marriage penalty for taxpayers affected by this new surtax. This is one way in which the MATH bill moves our Tax Code clearly in the wrong direction. The very same surtax is at the heart of the new marriage tax penalty and is also going to diminish the value of deductions that can be claimed in the filing of taxes. These deductions include the mortgage interest deduction and the deductions for charitable contributions. Under the bill, the deduction for State and local taxes would also be diminished in value. How exactly are the Democrats going to erode the value of these deductions, and that is another shell game, Mr. Speaker. Because they would implement this surtax based on adjusted gross income instead of taxable income, the surtax is applied before you're able to make any deductions. While that may sound like something that only green-eye-shade types can decipher, it's going to be hard not to understand the next time you end up tallying your taxes. The end result is simple: less money in the pocket of working families all across America. So to recap so far, the Democrats have put forward a bill that socks it to married couples in the form of a brand new mammoth marriage penalty and that decreases the value of any deductions that are available to the claimant, including the standard deduction. What else could they possibly dream up to tax the American family? How about the tax on families with kids? That, Mr. Speaker, is the next station this train wreck of a tax bill heads to. A magnifico in the Democrat Party in the House earlier this year called the alternative minimum tax the parent penalty. I guess that was a poll-tested term. In fact, it was during his national radio address on the AMT when the following was said, and I quote: ``While Republicans were passing multiple tax cuts for the very wealthy over the last 6 years, the Bush administration and the Republican Congress seemed to have forgotten about the middle-class families.'' The new Democratic Congress has made cutting the AMT, the parent penalty, our top priority for tax reform. Curiously, the Democratic budget and the MATH bill don't fix this so- called parent penalty. Instead, it forces the taxman to drop the hammer on working families by increasing taxes on those the Democrats claim to want to help. To understand how the Democrats are now increasing taxes on middle-class parents, we have to go back to 1997 when the Democrats claimed Republicans were focused on cutting taxes for the wealthy. The Republican majority created the child tax credit in 1997, and then increased the credit from $500 to $1,000. It was limited at the top. It was capped in the families by income that would be eligible for it. Also, the Republican majority lowered the bottom tax bracket to 10 percent from 15 percent. Those are working families at the bottom end of the economic ladder who benefit from that. Yet the Democrats in their budget want the child tax credit to revert to $500 and those in the lowest tax bracket to pay 15 percent instead of 10 percent. So using the current level of tax and value of the credit and then comparing it to the tax rates imposed on middle-class families in the MATH bill, just how do parents fare? The answer may surprise you, given all the Democratic rhetoric flying around the Capitol in recent years. Let's look at an example to see what is really going on. Peter and Kelly of Waterford, Pennsylvania, are a married couple with two children and have an adjusted gross income of $45,000 in 2011. They have four exemptions totaling $14,800, plus $13,000 worth of deductions for their charitable contributions, mortgage interest and State taxes. Under the current tax system, Peter and Kelly would have a negative tax liability of $275 and would get a check from the taxman. Under the MATH bill proposed by the Democrats, however, Peter and Kelly would owe the taxman over $1,500. How can that possibly be? After all the Democrats said they wanted to help working families like Peter and Kelly. The fact is that the Democrats are playing fast and loose with their rhetoric and are now playing the game of three-card monte with this family. They say they are removing something called a parent penalty, but by assuming the expiration of the 10 percent tax credit and the child credit declining to $500, the tax bill doesn't lie. This is a big tax increase and in some respects a different standard of living for these parents. That is why it is so important to talk about just how bad this bill is. With all the information in hand, taxpayers won't be fooled by the Democrats' smoke and mirrors. The only ones foolish enough to believe the claims about this bill, I believe, are my colleagues themselves on the other side of the aisle. If that wasn't enough, Mr. Speaker, the majority proposes to vault U.S. individual tax rates to among the highest in the entire developed world. When the surtax included in the MATH bill is combined with the take-the-money-and-run revenue grab of repealing the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, the majority would leave the top tax rate at more than 44 percent. Of all the members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, that is the club of the developed world, only five would have higher top marginal tax rates in 2011. This is a staggering increase on the top rate. Some will counter that this increase is only fair because it is directed at only the wealthiest individuals in our country. But those critics would be dead wrong. They would fail to recognize that this crushingly high tax rate will affect small business owners and farmers who report business income through the individual tax code and will cripple the engine of opportunity, job growth and innovation that makes our economy strong. This is the most dynamic part of our economy. In fact, the Heritage Foundation has estimated that this bill, in conjunction with the repeal of the 2001 and 2003 tax policies, would have the effect of eliminating the entire economic output of my hometown of Erie, Pennsylvania, seven times over each year beginning in 2011. All year, Democrats have been blindly and steadfastly hanging on to the misguided theory that taxpayers are worse off as a result of the 2001 and 2003 tax relief. Their theory is that because those taxpayers got a tax cut, they were more likely to go into AMT status and therefore be subject to a higher tax bill from Washington. Not everything in their theory is completely inaccurate. Yes, as a result of the 2001 and 2003 tax relief, more taxpayers were subject to the AMT, and the reason is simple: you are subject to the AMT if your liability under it is higher than your liability under the regular tax. The part they have wrong is that those taxpayers are worse off as a result of now being in the AMT. In fact, they are not worse off than they were, because without the 2001 and 2003 tax policies, they would have paid the same or higher taxes than they do now, even in the AMT. Where this story gets interesting, however, is that the Democrats' own logic is now turned against them and exposes a major flaw in their bill, the mother of all tax hikes. The stakes are high and job creation hangs in the balance. Unfortunately, the mother of all tax hikes will dole out one serious beating, particularly on small manufacturers, on innovators, on entrepreneurs, and ultimately on job creation. To understand why, let's borrow the Democrats' own theory, namely, that if rates are lowered, more taxpayers will be subject to the AMT. Only this time, under the mother of all tax hikes, the taxpayers are getting thrown into the AMT as employers. The individual AMT is not the only monster lurking in the Tax Code. Similar to the individual AMT, the corporate AMT is a horribly inefficient and counterproductive parallel tax system, a source of complexity. The Democrats' bill will, by virtue of modestly lowering the corporate income tax rate, have the effect of increasing the number of corporate AMT taxpayers. What do the Democrats do to head off this problem, which they decried as a fundamental unfairness when the Bush tax cuts did the same things for individuals? Not a thing. Nothing at all. Nada. Why is this more important, you may ask? Won't they be better off than they would have been absent the tax cut? While it may be true that corporate taxpayers thrust into the corporate AMT as a result of the mother of all tax hikes may not pay more tax overall, the corporate AMT has built in disincentives to capital investment and job growth. In short, the corporate AMT, especially for capital-intensive industries, such as the ones in my district, manufacturing, forces employers to choose between investing in their tax bill or investing in job creation. I, for one, have long advocated for a Tax Code that embraces incentives to create jobs, as opposed to a policy that is a dead drag on the economy. In addition, by lowering rates but not dealing with the corporate AMT at the same time, the mother of all tax hikes will further entrench employers already in the AMT. This will make it even harder for those taxpayers to get out of the AMT. The practical consequence of this is that existing corporate AMT taxpayers, being forced to stay in the AMT longer, or even indefinitely, will not be able to use the AMT credits that they have accumulated. These credits are given so a corporate AMT taxpayer will be able to offset future tax liability as a way to make sure that the AMT is not a permanent tax increase. But unless the taxpayer can ultimately leave the AMT, the reality is, in effect, it is a permanent tax increase. In other words, by increasing the strength of the AMT's hold on taxpayers, it will likely translate into a permanent tax increase for some employers that find it difficult to get out of the AMT, and many of these are tax sensitive. This is absolutely the wrong direction for Congress to take. Instead of entrenching the corporate AMT in the Tax Code, we should be repealing it outright. The corporate AMT turns incentives enacted by Congress to spur new investment and create jobs into liabilities. This includes research and development activity and the purchase of new equipment. Because more firms are subject to the AMT during economic downturns, the AMT increases taxes during recessions and decreases them during relatively prosperous periods. This artificially accentuates natural market cycles and unnecessarily destabilizes the economy. The end result is job loss and employers being forced into protracted fears of stagnation when it comes to investment in ingenuity. Not only does the mother of all tax hikes fail miserably to deliver on its promise of middle-class tax relief, but it also makes an intense effort to put those middle-class taxpayers out of work. This is a bad initiative. It is one borne of ideology rather than practical experience. It is a bad tax policy, and we know from past experience that an old saw of Daniel Webster's holds true: The power to tax is the power to destroy. If we allow these higher taxes to go into place, it will have a negative impact on our economy, on many of our working families, on many families that we have sought to support through judicious use of the Tax Code. Mr. Speaker, I think it would be a terrible mistake if, without a fight, we allowed this Democrat tax bill to go into law masquerading as tax reform, but basically dramatically increasing the amount of our national wealth that is confiscated. I am prepared to join this fight. I am delighted to join the gentleman from Texas and others. I believe there will be a clear philosophical difference laid out before this Congress between those who want to reform the Tax Code through simplification, putting in place the right incentives and pro-growth economic policies, and those who want to game the Tax Code and generate more revenue at whatever economic cost and shift more and more of the burden down to the middle class. This is a fight worth having, and I am proud to join the gentleman from Texas to be part of it.

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. That's correct. What we are seeing is a vehicle being called ``tax reform'' being used as a locomotive to drive higher taxes, higher revenues, and higher spending levels. This is an attempt in the name of fiscal responsibility to take more from the American economy, more from American working families, more from the public at the expense of the private economy.